Compromises happen everyday, and it happened everyday since the past. A compromise is considered to be an agreement where both sides negotiate and bargain, or give up some things, and gain some things, until both side' reach and agreement. Two examples I have chosen are the three-fifths compromise, and The Great Compromise. In the three-fifths compromise the two sides were, the slave holding states, and the non-salve holding states. The slave holding states wanted their slaves to be counted in representation, because for them this means more population, more representation, therefore more power. The non-slave holding states said that if slaves can be counted as property and representation, why couldn't anything else be? My other example is The Great Compromise; in this the large states wanted a bicameral legislature, based on population. The smaller states wanted equal representation. Both of my examples ended with a compromise that satisfied all.
One issue the framers had to deal with was the three-fifths compromise. The slave-holding states wanted the slaves to be counted as people for the House of Representatives, even though they were treated and counted as property. Their motives were that; they would have more population, which means more representatives, which ultimately means more power. The non-slave holding states on the other hand opposed this because that would mean that the slave-holding states would have more votes then them, which means they would have more power, also if slaves which were basically property could count as representation, what else could? The final compromise was as follows; tax and slavery were linked; each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation at the house, and also three-fifths of a slave would count as tax. I think this was a decent compromise, favoring the slave-holding states. This is because at the end the slave states have